Something new at last!!

Correct. I find this work very weak. Technically very poor and lacking in any sort of substance. Schizophrenic in its lack of direction. In addition to that, the website is one of the poorest I have ever seen. The download time is too long - the homepage is way too cluttered - and it lacks the design aspects that you expect of an artists who understands how to arrange form in space. That is enough to tell if the person is an artist or not. Demon provide enough space for something like fifty pages on their homepages - why would anyone want to cram it all onto one page. Would you hang all your work on one wall of a gallery when there were three others available. In addition to that, having read Peter here and on the philosophy groups - and a few other places too - he seems to be drawn by the idea that of the tormented artist. There is no place for myths in today's art world. A couple of pieces of work in what, two years ? How can we applaud that in an artist. The artists I know, including myself, produce that a day. I smell a fraud here.

Alison A Raimes http://artlives.homestead.com

Jump in hits should never be measured as *success* - and this isn't intended just for Peter. You might want to check how long the hitters stayed at the site and then look at the response you have received as a result of the visits. Did those people stay long enough to look at the work or was it a thirty second and leave hit - which means that they didn't actually see the work. Did you get favourable responses from total strangers - or did your chums just give your ego a quick shine. Don't deceive yourself into believing you are successful from statistic.

You draw as well as Jean Michael Basquit. (Bisquit or whatever the spelling is.) That Ganeesh elephant guy gave me the creeps. Careful with that axe. Weird stuff.

The page is to damded big. At least for those of us 56k or under.

Scarlett,

I really can't see why you're praising this guy's work. He reminds me of people I've come across who've done maybe 10 or 12 little paintings and they 'enjoyed it' so they had business cards printed up 'Joe So-and-so - Artist'. And then it's another six months before they paint again. Not to come on like Mani, but this guy just hasn't gotten anywhere with his work. He simply hasn't done enough. Sure, everyone starts somewhere, but why the clamoring for public attention to present (badly) what is at best, student work?

Nor does he seem to know anything about the art historical context he's trying to prop himself up with. 'Paintings, drawings and photographs - realist, abstract, impressionist and expressionist' come on! And in case *that* doesn't legitimate his amateurish efforts, how about 'Peter Brooks (1958- )'

Scarlett,

I really can't see why you're praising this guy's work. He reminds me of people I've come across who've done maybe 10 or 12 little paintings and they 'enjoyed it' so they had business cards printed up 'Joe So-and-so - Artist'. And then it's another six months before they paint again. Not to come on like Mani, but this guy just hasn't gotten anywhere with his work. He simply hasn't done enough. Sure, everyone starts somewhere, but why the clamoring for public attention to present (badly) what is at best, student work?

Nor does he seem to know anything about the art historical context he's trying to prop himself up with. 'Paintings, drawings and photographs - realist, abstract, impressionist and expressionist' come on! And in case *that* doesn't legitimate his amateurish efforts, how about 'Peter Brooks (1958- )'

Then maybe you should look a little closer. Still, I am glad that you found my web-site gave you something to think about. I think that it is good that there are divided opinions about my paintings - I would be much less happy if there was just one view! You should also realise that, when looking at digital photographs of paintings, you need to think about what the original is like - it is often rather different from the photo'.

For people like you, it may help if I put a small selection of my less colourful work on my web-site. Maybe you would like some pen&ink drawings, some pastels or some pencil drawings. I think that I may do that in the next week or too - it will give Alison something to get nice and cross about too. I like to do my bit to make people happy!

At the risk of incurring wrath myself, I'm surprised by the vehemence of some of the people who have responded to this posting. Surely art is an intensely personal thing, and also a matter of taste. Criticism which is based purely on personal distaste, rather than a constructive appraisal, surely can only come from someone who has no understanding of the individual's right to express themselves in the way that they choose. There isn't 'one way' - the most important thing is that the artist believes in what they are doing, rather than trying to fit into an accepted mode of thought at the expense of their own individuality.

This isn't to say, of course, that there is anything wrong with adopting styles of art which fit into an artists mode of working.

I don't see the point of 'bitchy' attacks on other artists - they serve no purpose other than to potentially demoralise and upset the artist - a lot of us are sensitive creatures after all! Tactful criticism, on the other hand, can be extremely helpful, and is what make such forms of communication of great value.

To get back to the subject of the original posting, I would agree with someone else who has replied that the site is far too slow - perhaps you could split older or themed images onto seperate pages, or use thumbnails?

Apart from that, the paintings were interesting, particularly the way the titles invite you to look for stories within them.

deja.com> writes

Absolutely. And as I said to Peter in the other post, there is no problem with that until the person making the work tries to become a professional. I applaud those who make art in every form, but I will challenge the motives of anyone who takes that art and places it on the market. The two areas are very different although there is no reason that they cannot sit side by side. As one of the most successful professional artists i know said to me the other day, in the studio it is art, outside it is a product and is no longer a personal thing. If Peter chooses to make his art public property by exhibiting it and asking money for it, then he must be prepared for the consequences of that. The first thing you need is a tough skin, and I don't think he has that.

Alison A Raimes http://artlives.homestead.com

Please don't go to the bother of putting up anymore work on my account, Peter. I did try and look for something to praise in your work, and decided that the little ditty at the end was fun. As to the 10,000 plus people who have apparently visited your site, I would imagine you would be overwhelmed by responses. That's an amazing amount of hits to one site, you must let us know how on earth you achieved it. On this I have to applaud you. And there I was about to question you on the authenticity of the hits - but no one would need to inflate the number, unless they were trying to deceive. I am sure you are not, because you have said so, so I apologise for the doubts that went through my head.

My assessment was unbiased and made long before I ever exchanged with you. It hasn't changed with the introduction of the three new works. If you go back through the alt.brallen archives you will find I discussed your work sometime ago with a few others. But I warn you, you might not like some of the responses and criticisms. I questioned your descriptions of your work as expressionist, impressionist and various other terms, all in the same context. I see you have now removed that description and wonder why.

I have absolutely no problem with anyone doing art of any sort, in fact I encourage and teach art at all instances. But the minute that someone starts talking about gallery representation and puts their work up for sale, and start calling themselves an *artist*, then the game changes. Call that bitchy if you want - I call it pride in something I am committed to. On that note, I have a major exhibition coming up and a lot of work to do. Perhaps this little exchange might help you to evaluate what it is you think you want to achieve from your art making.

Alison A Raimes http://artlives.homestead.com

Thank you for your concern! You shouldn't be that concerned, though, Alison has been anti-me for some time now for some reason, so you shouldn't take her sour grapes too seriously - I don't!

I think that it is good that people feel strongly - I would prefer, as you say, if the feelings were better directed, more specific, rather than just emotings. Still, you can't expect everything to be the way you would like it to be, and I am fairly philosophical about this. I agree with this, mainly. I think that there is an objective aesthetics. For this reason I am particularly interested in my, and others, paintings that evoke strong reactions in both directions. I feel that I am doing something right, and touching somewhere close to the edge, when one person reacts in horror and anger to what another person reacts to with delight, recognition and praise. Clearly this often says more about the person so reacting rather than the painting itself, but I think that, as triggers, the images must have an effect. After all, hundreds of people post URL's to their web pages on usenet. Alison ignores almost all of them, but makes a special point of attacking my art - and she goes out of her way to pull out all the stops, she only just managed to keep hereself from criticism of the particular hue of blue that I used as a background. Still, she is given to extreme emoting, so one shouldn't read too much into it.

Anyway, part of the job of art is to excite interest and comment. I feel happy that mine plays this role - as well as providing me with a great deal of satisfaction and enjoyment as I produce it (the reason that I actually do it). Yes. This is one of Alison's (and I mention her only because she is recent and extreme in her views), points. She is unhappy that I don't fit into an easily analysable (and dismissable) 'school' or style. I find this an interesting objection. Clearly one can, with many artists, recognise them by their style quite easily. This is more the case with visual artists (where it is seen as a virtue) than verbal artists (where it is seen as a block).

It is funny that there is such a divergence. Few would argue that John Fowles is a poor novelist because his books are all completely different, or that the late Barbara Cartland was a great artist because all her books were so similar. Though Alison would be right as far as popularity is concerned, Cartland almost certainly made more money than Fowles.

I must say that I prefer not to produce work that is the same. When I do have an idea that I wish to follow, I see the initial sketches, drawings and other development as just a means to an end, the final picture is what I am aiming at. I am not keen on producing a whole gallery filled with the same theme. I know that I am in a minority here (Alison calls it schizophrenic) as I often feel a bit depressed at exhibitions that show so little originality - one good idea done to death in twenty or more paintings. Still, I may return to some of my earlier ideas and do some more work in that direction, so I am not hard and fast in my feelings about this. I think that Alison feels confident that I have a thick enough skin. Actually these attacks do, as I say, say rather a lot about the person making the attack - and sadly not that much about the art or artist that they are directed against.

Look at some of Alison's fights with Mani, and then put her attack on me into context. Alison wishes to refute the points that Mani raises (admittedly at great length and in a rather extreme and not terribly exciting way) by proving that her paintings, abstract as they are, have artistic value. She does this by arguing for her knowledge of the history of art from her degree - which I find unconvincing to say the least - and, now, from attacking my paintings as inferior. Surely, she is saying, to Mani and his ilk, if I can tell high quality from low quality art, then my art has value. It does make some sense.

Another instructive exercise is to look at my reply to her posting, then her reply to that - and see how many of my points she fails to address. Also look at the particular points she leaves out. That will give you a pretty good idea of what her agenda is - try it! Yes, I will speed it up. I will reduce the resolution of the jpeg files. I am happy with the scrolling mechanism (though I may change it in future, I certainly am not boxing myself in just because it has been criticised!), but agree that, for people with slow modems, it is kinder to give a faster download. Thank you for that! I think that I should probably change the 'bombed house' title as some people have found it confusing. I am not quite sure what to change it to, but that is something pleasant to think about.

This is a funny argument. Just the other day, well a couple of months ago, you were arguing that the value of art was not its commercial succes - actually you made quite a point about it.

Anyway, whatever your motives (or mine, for that matter), you are too late, I am already a professional artist, and have been so for some time. I sold my first work in 1994 - I remember it particularly as I had only just completed it and hadn't put it up for sale (or even considered doing that, at that stage, actually) when somebody visiting insisted that I put a price on it and bought it within minutes of having seen it.

It certainly inspired me to do more painting and drawing!

I agree with you about things on the market being products - though, sadly, quite a lot of them weren't art when they were in the studio. Ah, well, I was wrong there. I said in a previous post that I thought that you thought that I did have a thick enough skin. I hadn't realised that you were actually attacking somebody who you thought had a thin skin. I am afraid that it rather lowers my opinion of you. I admire people who know when to pull their punches.